clannadfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Munchvtec
Adoption request Hi. I’ve given you admin and bureaucrat rights on this community as you requested. You now have the tools you need to clean up, customize, and maintain the wiki. *Check out to see which features you can enable (or disable) on your wiki, including and many more. If you have adopted an older community with talk pages, you can enable and if you wish. If you are interested in the feature, you can request it using the form at . *Customize your community's look by visiting the , where you can add color and style to your background and wordmark for your desktop visitors. *Customize the and convert infoboxes to the new for your visitors on mobile devices. *Look through the various useful reports available at , including popular pages, uncategorized pages, and wanted pages for ideas on ways to improve your community. *Stop by Community Central to stay informed with our staff blog, and ask questions on our community forum, or chat with fellow contributors. *Lastly, visit our to learn the ins and outs of running a wiki, including , , and . Check out your Admin Dashboard, which can be found by clicking "Admin" on the bottom toolbar. It has links to all your new tools. Please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with your new (old) wiki! JoePlay https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/joeplayground/images/e/e5/FandomStaff.png (talk) 21:30, August 17, 2018 (UTC) :Awesome, thank you. Munchvtec (talk) 21:56, August 17, 2018 (UTC) Affiliation Hello. I'm an Admin for Banana Fish Wiki. I just wanted to tell you that we would like Clannad Wiki to become an affiliate of Banana Fish Wiki, that way we can work together and can make the community a much better place for new users. You can visit our website here. Website here:https://banana-fish.wikia.com Website wordmark here:Banana Fish word mark DragonKestrel (talk) 02:57, January 16, 2019 (UTC)DragonKestrel :What similarities do the two series have? Banana Fish is a crime-thriller, whilst Clannad is a psychological-romance. It'd be much more beneficial for you to go after wikias relating to series that share similarites with the one your wikia documents. I'll have to turn this one down, apologies. Munchvtec (talk) 03:20, January 16, 2019 (UTC) RE:Unused Files Images take up memory and space and unused images usually serve the wiki in no way. Over time, the list of unused files will grow larger and larger so in my opinion it’s better to get rid of the ones that we don’t need now then to wait till then. I see that you’ve restored plenty of them. If you have plans to potentially use them, that’s good. 16:29, June 20, 2019 (UTC) Theme About the theme change. Apologies for not consulting you about it, meant no disrespect in anyway. As for why I changed it, I felt the colours didn’t match the main page and the color combinations could be done better. What do you think about it? Are you satisfied with how it presently is? 16:37, June 20, 2019 (UTC) : Hey, I find the link color (which is currently black) to blend in too much with the text color (grey), which makes it hard differentiate the two or tell them apart. So I think we should change the link color. I’ve previewed several colours in theme designer, and find that a light/bright color doesn’t go too well with the grey background. So I suggest a slightly darker color for the links. What do you think? 06:15, June 22, 2019 (UTC) ::I find that a slightly dark blue works. How is this? 16:28, June 22, 2019 (UTC) Possessive Links I think that possessive links (Yōhei Sunohara's) should be written the way I just wrote them; the whole word, 's and all, is linked. When the 's is added, the word is changed into a new form, like adding -ing to a verb. My justification is that linking only part of a word looks sloppy, but as I see, you might disagree. 15:38, July 15, 2019 (UTC) :The reason I think Yōhei's is better than Yōhei's, for example, is because this way all the text of the same word is the same color. It just looks bad to link part of a word and leave the other part unlinked. The extra text/code isn't "unnecessary" if it makes the articles work better, and when there is good reason for the extra characters. I also find the source code ugly and redundant, but the possessive suffix is a part of the word (contrary e.g. to verb contractions), so it should be linked together with the word. If it looks good on the page, what is an extra 15 characters or so? Page appearance should be kept a priority over source appearance. So this does not serve zero purpose, in my opinion. 16:45, July 15, 2019 (UTC) ::I agree the source is ugly in terms of its length, but I wouldn’t say it’s objectively true. It’s also a subjective opinion. However, the appearance of the source is not what should matter. The two things that should matter the most are: ::#the editing of the source (not to confuse with the appearance of the source) ::#the appearance of the page/article. ::The editing/coding itself is quite simple and doesn’t require any real effort or time aside from a few extra seconds. My opinion about the appearance of the page is subjective but I still think it’s reasonable. All the text of the same word having the same color seems clearly better than all the text of the word not having the same color. We need to make the site more fluid in the actual articles not source mode. If extra code is needed for that, then I say we should do it. When the 's is added, the word is changed into a new form, like adding -ing to a verb. As I said above, the possessive suffix is a part of the word, so it should make sense to also link it together with the word. 17:56, July 15, 2019 (UTC) :::There is no storage disaster going on at Wikia/Fandom that would require corner cutting at the byte level. At least there is not one I know of. Also RAM evolved past 1 kilobyte in 1972, so that again is not an issue. In my opinion there are way more confusing source-layer aspects that have to be done away with - things like using {1} which is intimidating because unless you were the writer of it, it is not difficult to understand without descriptions/explanations, or nested templates inside of nested templates. :::I really do not see your point in regard to piped links which can be very useful when shortening an article's name - instead of typing, example: :::"Akio Furukawa replaces Yōhei Sunohara's role as comic relief during the Clannad ~After Story~ arc" :::"Tomoya Okazaki goes off to another area and meets his grandmother Shino Okazaki, Naoyuki Okazaki's mother. :::You could instead type: :::"Akio replaces Yōhei's role as comic relief during the After Story arc" :::"Tomoya goes off to another area and meets his grandmother Shino, his father's mother." :::No meaning of the content is lost, redundancy is reduced, and it helps better the aesthetics of the article. If it is really that confusing to many inexperienced users that they cannot learn a simple code that takes almost a minute to be understood, then perhaps they shouldn't contribute until they learn it? This is more simpler to learn than an infobox. In that case, should we remove infoboxes? No. :::Also, I can understand that new users finding it complicated may seem intuitively true (just as humans, based on intuition, once believed that the sun rotates around the earth or that the earth is flat), but this is not in fact true. Practical observation trumps intuition. The One Piece Wiki demonstrably proves this to be false. New users had no such confusions/problems in the One Piece Wiki. And if you take a look at the OP wiki, piped links are widely used. They are used A LOT. And despite this fact, newcomers (of which there are many) were able to edit pages without making a huge mess of the source code of the piped links. You can ask any long time contributor there, and they’ll tell you the same. New users can easily grasp how piped links work without any problems. 10:08, July 18, 2019 (UTC)